Ebert was always more willing to accept camp as a valid form of entertainment and that made him more accepting of Tarantino’s style of filmmaking than Siskel who was bit more highbrow
4:04 True Romance 7:49 Pulp Fiction 16:48 Tarantino (Person) 20:53 Jackie Brown 24:24 Best Films of the 90s 26:23 Kill Bill Vol.1 29:27 Kill Bill Vol.2 Let me know if I made any mistakes, feel free to redo this
Ebert is my favorite critic ever. We didnt always agree, but i always respected his take. It was so hard to see his deterioration near the end of his career.
Yeah, that's the worst thing about these Siskel / Ebert collection videos we see them age in fast-motion until they get sick, then disappear from the screen altogether 😔
Gary oldman's performance in True Romance. . Deserves a whole lot more praise. . He was the best character actor in the movie I thought. . Which is saying a lot considering the cast .
I love a few things about this compilation: (1) It reminds you that, even when a film is poorly reviewed by someone right out of the gate, it can still have the staying power to outlast and overshadow other films of its year, like "True Romance" vs "Kalifornia." (2) A filmmaker might be deemed a genius eventually but sometimes it takes decades for palettes to adjust and meet them where they live. (3) I've never had the love for "Pulp Fiction" that others do, even though I like it, and hearing Siskel and Ebert talk about it helped me suss out exactly why that was.
Videos like this are invaluable. I will never trust other reviewers like these two. If they both give something thumbs up, you better believe that it's good!
Im about to be 36, and I’d read Ebert’s reviews since I was a kid, always looked forward to Fridays when new movies came out and his reviews were in my local paper. Always seemed to agree with the man, but what I find most interesting are the times he hated a film and I dug it. I feel like those times always revealed more of who he was as a critic for me. Dude was and always will be the GOAT
I feel like too many people evaluate him with a bias of nostalgia. He was actually a pretty bad critic. One year he picked Gladiator as one of the duds of the year, but the Nutty Professor 2 as one of the year's best. C'mon. He doesn't hold a candle to someone like Mark Kermode
I don't know that truer words were ever said, lol. I recently watched the unrated cut of Kalifornia, decent film, interesting and unique look at an early Brad Pitt, must see for "completists" of 90's Cinema and I can see there's a comparison to be made with True Romance, BUT . . . . I mean, TRUE ROMANCE. The movie really speaks for itself, especially with it's reputation now. Their opinions about "stupid", juvenile/male fantasy etc etc really feels like holding the wrong expectation going in and pretentious moralizing towards a film that I personally don't think demands that level of film studies analysis. That said, I of course have massive respect for Roger Ebert and I'd assume his take on QT & TR evolved later in his career.
I can’t believe it but I saw Jackie Brown for the first time ever last night and it was phenomenal. A real mature piece of writing and directing with phenomenal performances. I really fell in love with Pam Grier and her crooked smile.
You can see how much admiration Siskel had for Tatantino which is why he held him to a high standard whenever he put out lesser efforts like From 'Dusk Til Dawn.'
5:58 "I can't tell, are you recommending the film?" ha. he had me sold on that pitch! (and I'm 40) I guess he preferred his violence more artful and inspirational than silly and ridiculous, glad they got with it with Pulp Fiction
I respect both these guys more than I did back in their heyday (by the time Roeper came in, the respect had begun). So insightful and knowledgeable in such a brief, off the cuff manner.
I watched Kalifornia once a few years after it came out, and wasn't impressed. Brad Pitt is just hilarious in it, and not in a good way. Meanwhile, True Romance is the movie that went on to become a beloved classic, and almost no one even remembers Kalifornia.
Pitt does a convincing accent in Kalifornia. He proved incapable of similar work under Tarantino in I.B. where he allegedly had a stronger script. I managed a video store at the turn of the millennium. Kalifornia was often rented by people asking for “Brad Pitt but something I haven’t seen.” Never had a complaint. Actors do some of their best work with that scripts all of the time. Robert Forster had almost an entire career that way.
Kalifornia is great, what are you talking about?! And Brad Pitt is very convincing as a psychopath. Just because a movie is not a considered a classic does not mean it's automatically not good
True Romance had good dialogue but it's a trashy film. That was no classic. Kalifornia actually has something to say about Violence in the USA, it's a brilliant commentary. It's a disturbing film with an ending that makes angry because it shows that nobody learned anything throughout the entire film. This is no contest, Kalifornia is the superior and vastly more intelligent film.
I'm a fan of every Tarantino films, with the exception of the hateful 8. And I recently re-watched pulp fiction and it occurred to me that there are very few films in history where every actor played their characters to perfection
I agree with them about Dogs but True Romance was good. I also thought for the longest time that Siskel gave Jackie Brown thumbs down, but it's good to see they both enjoyed it.
Its so crazy how time changes so much!! With art and how people perceive it!! In this comment, when i say people, i mean mainstream critics pretty much!!🤷♂️🤷♂️ Its really interesting to see them saying things like behavior really is nothing!!??🤷♂️🤷♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
On the From Dusk Till Dawn segment... Ebert said the movie borrowed from Romero that it takes one bite to turn into a "ghoul".. Wait, whaaattt..?? 😮 They're VAMPIRES, roger... 🤦♂️ Vampires BITE! That's what they DO. They never " borrow" that from Romero or anybother filmmakers... 😂😂
They are vampires but they are more like the Romero zombie than any vampire portrayal. Dracula or nosferatu would be isolated weirdo, seducing and terrifying their prey. While these vampires are borderline retarded when transformed.
I find it interesting to see their critiques of Quentin Tarantino change over the years. I felt that they were unfair to RESERVOIR DOGS treating it almost like they would a shlock horror movie during the 70s and 80s. However they explained that no violence was actually done on camera in the Bruce Willis sword fight but didn't see that the ear cutting scene in RESERVOIR DOGS was never shown on camera either. By Jackie Brown I think they might finally be better prepared to go back and enjoy the first with new eyes because RESERVOIR DOGS is a near perfect film.
And Roger Ebert said he was wrong about QT and admitted it many times. That I can respect, but for them not to see the genius during Res Dogs, just shows they are just like any fan of movies, it’s an opinion and not a fact
Ironically, they described what many people liked about the movie as what detracted from it. They wanted more action and less dialogue. I can agree with that. However, I think the magic of that movie was the character interactions with each other. The undercover cop, the cool relaxed pro, the unhinged pro, the uptight by the book pro, etc. The primarily one setting warehouse almost feels like a play. And it worked for me.
As a non-American who only heard of Siskel and Ebert by reputation (and saw later them on RU-vid) did Ebert always introduce the movies before Siskel piped up with his opinion? Did they ever swap roles?
They alternated with each introducing every other film on the show. While they seem to have grown some affection for one another over time, when the two started back in the '70s they were rivals who absolutely did not like each other and there were frequent fights about things like order and screen time with even the order of names on the title being a point of heated contention.
I think its hilarious when siskel is talking about the violence that is not being shown but forgot to mention the rape that is taking place in that exact scene.
I bet you haven't seen one tenth of the "best movies ever", let alone a tenth of all the films ever made - otherwise you wouldn't arrive at that conclusion.
@@jimnewcombe7584 I agree TR is ok it’s basically a comedy for adults. I think Badlands the original is superior. If anything, Jackie Brown is Tarantino‘s best movie because it’s the only non-comedy.
It's funny that 30 years later I remember having a recent enough chat with a film loving friend about True Romance which I've watched multiple times down the years and I'm sure almost daily, that people all over the world still quote lines from it. Can you say the same thing about Kalafornia? I very much doubt it. Not to say it is a bad film, but I saw it years ago, never felt the need to come back to it again (until now) and can barely remember it. Critics, even good ones, are no different to anyone else, they're just people with opinions. In terms of impact and longevity anyway which are somewhat measurable and not subjective in the same way as asking what film is "better" than the other for instance, they got that one very very wrong. I've always felt there was a hint of snobbishness to how Tarintinos films are treated by not only some film critics, but also enthusiasts aswell. He's that one (insert niche music genre here) band or artist that cracked the pop charts and broke into the mainstream. The enthusiasts who would have loved him had he remained niche now despise him because all the normies have crowned him king of their niche little worlds.
How about for Blue Velvet, The Thing, Starship Troopers, and Full Metal Jacket, which Siskel saw the good in and Ebert did not? Ebert could be completely off at times and acted like a white knight when no one asked him to be one. They were both very opinionated reviewers for better and worse. And I do miss them.
@@bluemooninthedaylight8073 Roger was off at times and sometimes, they both got it wrong. The Brazil (1985)review is infuriating to watch. On the other hand, I think Roger was the better critic.
@@bluemooninthedaylight8073 Ebert was the better writer, but Gene often had better taste. They were a great counterbalance to one another though because neither was an iota intimidated by the other's opinion which is especially apparent if you ever watch any of the outtakes where they're just ripping into one another for what they both perceive as a stupid fucking opinion.
@@tacosavings9751 I agree, and I grew up watching them, so yes, I know all about their verbal warfare. They were definitely entertaining to watch. My favorite was when Gene told Roger to take a long hard look at his thumb over a questionable opinion. Funny stuff.
Kalifornia was crap, imho. The great Michelle Forbes was wasted in it, and Brad was much better as Floyd in True Romance…which is one of my favorite films of all time. And yes, I studied film, acting and writing. See what it got me? The ability to comment on a random RU-vid. Such is life
Nothing worse than people critiquing an artform they have zero experience in themselves. 😂 let’s go to see a lecture on architecture by a guy who’s never built a building 😂
@@roberthorne9017 how do you equate reality vs fantasy with pretentious vs mature? Is Scorsese pretentious for saying he doesn’t like all the hero movies?
Life is comic and serious at once. My problem with Tarentino is he doesn't understand people, so he can't write about them. Hence Jackie Brown being his worthwhile film, he didn't write it.
Thses dudes have always been wishy washy with their opinions never cared for them. Especially Ebert. Ever since I was 4, and he gave Godzilla 1985 a thumbs down
Film critics are losers but at least they make a living off it. People who listen to their opinions are worse. Watch the film, get your own opinion of it
What’s the odds that Tarantinos next film rips off Star 80 and is about Paul Baeston (the nurse in the exorcist, killed a critic and possibly the guy who inspired Cruising)?
As much as i love Pulp Fiction, i wish one day, there'd be a technology to digitally replace Tarantino with another more capable and charismatic actor in the role of Jimmy. It's just so painful to see and BUY that part where his character saying the "N" word to somebody like JULES, of all people, without any violent consequences. I think if it were someone like Harvey Keitel playing Jimmy it would've been more believable... and someone, who's an even more charismatic presence, like a Clint Eastwood or Gene Hackman can play The Wolf.
Pulp Fiction is 1 of The Most Overrated Movies in History....Reservoir Dogs is Not That Good Either...Django and The Hateful Eight Were VERY Good Movies
Overrated? Are you being serious, or have you been living under a stone? It's over-celebrated if anything. Also, Django and The Hateful Eight weren't half as good as Reservoir Dogs
@@angryagain3801 All that tells me is that your knowledge of cinema is impoverished, and that you're yet another of the thousands of RU-vid commentators who don't know how to construct a sentence without saying something which you have personal affection for is "the best ever". I agree that those are his only good films though - but it would be easy to name twenty directors who are far greater.
His movies were of a time, and it's over. He is lame now. His films are bland nonsense. He was good once, but he's boring now. His recent movies are boring nonsense now. Pulp fiction is pretty boring now. Give up, sicko fans
most overrated director ever. Really phoning it in the last few films. He's good at setting a stage but even his dialogue is pretty predictable now. Its like hey lets make everyday dialogue in intense situations which is fine until you do it every single movie. Here are his latest movies nemesis in order, Hitle r , slavery, manson. Way to go out on a limb there. Whats next?... pedophiles, house fires, animal abusers? Only great actors save his films.
I can forgive the praise for Kalifornia over True Romance, but what was unforgiveable was giving away the identity of the actor playing Elivs who's face was never shown and was one of my favorite suprises when watching.
I'm not so sure...they came up through the last three decades of the twentieth century and not only gained a massive following, they were also quite powerful. They hung out with legendary directors, producers, and actors, and were both fairly accomplished writers in their own right. It's easy to judge their opinions in retrospect, but they got so many things right, and their insight and film knowledge (and they both were incredibly knowledgeable on the history of world filmography) carries the day. I disagree with both of them mightily occasionally, but if you investigate, neither was shy about revamping their opinions as they aged. And finally, it took balls back in the day to review films at this level. The pressure they were under, as their review actually affected the box office. There were only a handful of well known reviewers, so when Siskel, for example, hammered Apocalypse Now, that took real guts...he was wrong, but he still had the strength of his convictions and did it. I respected that...
@@marijuasher Since about 2014. I'm only 46 and was a little kid, and then a teenager, AND THEN in my twenties while they were STILL influential! (Even after Siskel died.) You weren't there. You don't understand HOW ICONIC they were?!? The one thing that COULD HAVE ended their run is what DID, sickness and death.
